NVIDIA is readying a high-performance mobile GPU for a Computex 2012 unveiling. Called the GeForce GTX 680M, the chip is based on its trusty 28 nm GK104 silicon, but with about half its streaming multiprocessors disabled, resulting in a CUDA core count of around 768. Reference MXM boards of the chip could ship with memory options as high as 4 GB, across a 256-bit wide memory interface. With the right craftsmanship on the part of NVIDIA, the GTX 680M could end up with a power draw of 100W. A Chinese source had the opportunity to picture the reference board qualification sample, and put it through 3DMark 11, in which it was found to be roughly 37% faster than the GF114-based GeForce GTX 670M, scoring 4905 points in Performance preset. The test bed was driven by Intel Core i7-3720QM quad-core mobile processor.

vs 670M?!? They couldn't even pit it against the 675M (rebranded 580M)? Is it even as fast as the old 580M?

Disappointing if accurate.

LOL at 4GB for a crap notebook card. About as useful as 16GB or 32GB in a notebook.

Just a waste of the buyer's money to get a 'checkbox' on the box. Marketing BS. Put more money into a better screen you twits! Why the F are we all still waiting for IPS displays on our PC notebooks? Outrageous!

vs 670M?!? They couldn't even pit it against the 675M (rebranded 580M)? Is it even as fast as the old 580M?

Disappointing if accurate.

LOL at 4GB for a crap notebook card. About as useful as 16GB or 32GB in a notebook.

Just a waste of the buyer's money to get a 'checkbox' on the box. Marketing BS. Put more money into a better screen you twits! Why the F are we all still waiting for IPS displays on our PC notebooks? Outrageous!

Click to expand...

I have an IPS Display on my Lenovo X201T? And it isn't even a gaming laptop lol.

Let me seriously doubt it. Will it end faster? Posibly, but not that much faster.

7970M is based on Pitcairn, 1280 SPs and clocked at 850 Mhz. Desktop HD7870 scores a little over 6500 points at it's 1 Ghz default clock. Normalizing for 850 Mhz that's 5525 and it would probably be even less when paired up with mobile CPU which is weaker than a desktop setup. So 10% faster, yes. Eating it alive, nope.

BUT in general yeah it does not look like the best thing they could make and disabling half the chip does not sound like a reasonable thing to do.

We have to take this with a grain of salt really since the source mentions 768 SPs, but their first choice is 744 SPs (they say literally "GeForce GTX 680M has only 744 CUDA cores (but some listings suggest it has 768 cores – this still needs to be verified)"), which is the card that has suposedly been tested and 744 shaders is completely imposible with this chip. So prepare that truckload of salt.

PS: Many recent events are seriously making me doubt the mere existence of GK106 TBH. GK104 was certainly suposed to be the mid-range chip, considering GK100/110 is a 7 billion manstrosity and twice as big basically, GK104 was not even a performance part such as GF114 which was 3/4 of a GF110, it was a natural mid-range (half of GK110) part in Nvidia's original lineup. And now all of this has me thinking that maybe there was no such thing as GK106, considering this and the fact that the GTX660 will also be based on GK104 and the GTX 650 is apparently based on GK107.

Let me seriously doubt it. Will it end faster? Posibly, but not that much faster.

7970M is based on Pitcairn, 1280 SPs and clocked at 850 Mhz. Desktop HD7870 scores a little over 6500 points at it's 1 Ghz default clock. Normalizing for 850 Mhz that's 5525 and it would probably be even less when paired up with mobile CPU which is weaker than a desktop setup. So 10% faster, yes. Eating it alive, nope.

BUT in general yeah it does not look like the best thing they could make and disabling half the chip does not sound like a reasonable thing to do.

We have to take this with a grain of salt really since the source mentions 768 SPs, but their first choice is 744 SPs (they say literally "GeForce GTX 680M has only 744 CUDA cores (but some listings suggest it has 768 cores – this still needs to be verified)"), which is the card that has suposedly been tested and 744 shaders is completely imposible with this chip. So prepare that truckload of salt.

Yeah, let's keep the laughs for when we see official reviews shall we? The HD7850 does 5500 points according to official reviews. If you really want to make me believe the HD7970M with slightly lower clocks does 600+ more points and only 400 less than the desktop HD7870, you'll need to show me much more than a user posted result.

Same goes for the 680M results. Kepler was designed for using GPU Boost. It was designed for it, it depends on it. Lack of proper driver support for a part that does not yet officially exist and preformance will be a lot lower. Plus the 744 Sp thing. Salt please.

Let me seriously doubt it. Will it end faster? Posibly, but not that much faster.

7970M is based on Pitcairn, 1280 SPs and clocked at 850 Mhz. Desktop HD7870 scores a little over 6500 points at it's 1 Ghz default clock. Normalizing for 850 Mhz that's 5525 and it would probably be even less when paired up with mobile CPU which is weaker than a desktop setup. So 10% faster, yes. Eating it alive, nope.

Click to expand...

where did you get that 5500 score from ??? an official review ??? HA-HA-HA

Yeah, let's keep the laughs for when we see official reviews shall we? The HD7850 does 5500 points according to official reviews. If you really want to make me believe the HD7970M with slightly lower clocks does 600+ more points and only 400 less than the desktop HD7870, you'll need to show me much more than a user posted result.

Same goes for the 680M results. Kepler was designed for using GPU Boost. It was designed for it, it depends on it. Lack of proper driver support for a part that does not yet officially exist and preformance will be a lot lower. Plus the 744 Sp thing. Salt please.

where did you get that 5500 score from ??? an official review ??? HA-HA-HA

and yeah, WE WILL SEE

Click to expand...

I don't know what you do not understand about normalizing the results... and I never made any claim, you did. Ask yourself who's making the statement about what's going to happen and who's asking for caution and proofs.

You are making claims based on a source that says the card has 744 SPs. How dumb can that be? (to say it has 744 SPs) And how can you expect any resemblance of fact based on that?

The internet is full of fakes so one post by a random poster is not something I will base anything on. I don't know now about 3dmark 11 and other recent benchmarks, because honestly I don't care about them anymore, but you could easily make your results much better by using the performance profile instead of the quality one that comes by default, or enabling every single optimization available on the control panel, when reviews are almost invariably made with default (quality) settings. And that's just one of the dozens of example of how results can vary and how to trick/fake results. Personally I always inmediately enable the highest posible settings and as such I always usually have 10-20% lower fps than reviews.

So without knowing anything really and with so many unknown variables a claim such as yours is dumb really. And you insist on defending that claim which you cannot prove and you will continue doing it in a reply, I'm sure. And that's even dumber, but that's the internet I guess.

I don't know what you do not understand about normalizing the results... and I never made any claim, you did. Ask yourself who's making the statement about what's going to happen and who's asking for caution and proofs.

You are making claims based on a source that says the card has 744 SPs. How dumb can that be? (to say it has 744 SPs) And how can you expect any resemblance of fact based on that?

Click to expand...

WTF !!!

i didnt say a word about that damn SPs.

all i concern is about 3dmark score, and that look 'real' for me.

who care about SPs you dumbASS

ps. and you normalized a underclock 7870 to 7850 level ( with such a detailed score of 5525 )

Excuse me? If they can't get the number of SP right how can you take anything else seriously? lol ignorance is bliss? How does it look from there? Kepler is made of SMX which have 192 shaders. You try dividing 744 by 192. :shadedshu

ps. and you normalized a underclock 7870 to 7850 level ( with such a detailed score of 5525 )

Click to expand...

Wtf underclock. The HD7970M specs say it's a Pitcairn clocked at 850 Mhz. So I normalized 1000 Mhz scores to 850 Mhz and 5525 is the result. Of course if you are unable to do the most simple math...

Excuse me? If they can't get the number of SP right how can you take anything else seriously? lol ignorance is bliss? How does it look from there? Kepler is made of SMX which have 192 shaders. You try dividing 744 by 192. :shadedshu

Wtf underclock. The HD7970M specs say it's a Pitcairn clocked at 850 Mhz. So I normalized 1000 Mhz scores to 850 Mhz and 5525 is the result. Of course if you are unable to do the most simple math...

Anyways regarding this GTX 680M leak, these screenshots and info were actually uncovered before the 7970M specs were leaked and engineering/quality samples of it became available. Knowing nVidia's history with these things, it's likely that nVidia actually redid the GTX 680M from that point so that this revamped version can at least match the 7970M performance wise.

and your way to normalized is to multiply 6500 point of 7870 by 85 percent ??!!??

oh boy, cant stop laughing

Click to expand...

You can laugh all you want. Stock HD7970M does ~5700 as shown by the link I provided. So I was not far off.

HD7850 does around 5500 too and it's clocked close, 860 Mhz.

So laugh, laugh all you want, you only look like an idiot.

PS: People who know me for a long time know my track record of nailing the performance of upcoming cards based on specs and I don't use methods much more complicated than that. Only difference is I adjust based on where I think or know there will be a bottleneck and some other things. And if you think it's not as simple as that, maybe you should think about taking some computer science classes.